Table Of ContentARCHI
TECTURE
AT THE
EDGE
OF
EVERY
THING
ELSE
ARCHI
TECTURE
WORK BOOKS
AT THE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
THE MIT PRESS
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
LONDON, ENGLAND
EDGE
OF
ESTHER CHOI &
MARRIKKA TROTTER,
EDITORS
EVERY
THING
ELSE
CONTENTS
© 2010 Work Books, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology ix Acknowledgements
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any xi Introduction—
form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, The Name of the Game—
recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in A conversation between Esther Choi and Marrikka Trotter, editors
writing from the publisher.
MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts PART ONE HOW TO INTERPRET
for business or sales promotional use. For information, please email 2 How Does It Feel to Feel?
[email protected] or write to Special Sales Department,
Esther Choi
The MIT Press, 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142.
16 Neither Sweet nor Sour—
The Work Books project was conceived by Esther Choi and Marrikka
A conversation between Sylvia Lavin and Brett Albert
E
Trotter in 2008. E
22 Control Yourself! E
A
This book was printed and bound in China. Design: Omnivore, Inc.
Lifestyle Curation in the Work of Sejima and Nishizawa
Matthew Allen
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 34 Critical Conditions—
A conversation between Liam Gillick and Michael Meredith
Architecture at the edge of everything else / edited by Esther Choi and 44 Metaphoric Architecture—
Marrikka Trotter.
Douglas Wu
p. cm. — (Work books ; 1)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
PART TWO HOW TO INTERVENE
ISBN 978-0-262-01479-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Architecture—
Philosophy. I. Choi, Esther. II. Trotter, Marrikka. 62 Classic, Cool and Customizable—
NA2500.A715 2010 Brett Albert
720.1—dc22
74 Design Ops—
2010011627
A conversation between Teddy Cruz and Jonathan Tate
84 The “Post” in the Post-Communist City—
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Suzanne Ernst
96 Hair Shirts—
A conversation between Sanford Kwinter and Marrikka Trotter
www.work-books.org
108 Notes on Residual Space— ——
S
Yu Morishita T
N
E
T
N
PART THREE HOW TO IMAGINE O
C
122 The Activated Space: Eight Pattern Studies—
Joe Ringenberg
130 Re-enchanted Architecture—
A conversation between K. Michael Hays and Marrikka Trotter
138 The Collective Image: Form, Figure and the Future—
Trevor Patt
152 Airtight—
A conversation between Philippe Rahm and Esther Choi
160 Re-relational Architecture, or, the Glass House —
Marrikka Trotter
179 Contributors
181 Image Credits
184 Index
Acknowledgements— We would like to thank Roger Conover x
i
and his team at the MIT Press for believing in
this publication and for spurring us to do bet-
ter, go farther and never settle. The contribu-
tors to this book signed on when there was
no real likelihood that the project would come
to fruition, and they stuck with this process
with generosity, tenacity and understanding
throughout. In particular, we owe a special
debt of gratitude to Sanford Kwinter, who was
a stalwart supporter and unofficial advisor
for this project from the beginning. We would
like to thank Breanne Woods, our design
E
collaborator on the vision document; Judith E
E
A
McKay, our project manager; and especially
our designers, Omnivore. Their expertise
and guidance during the design process was
essential. We are also grateful to Wim Delvoye,
Foster + Partners, Gensler, Dan Hui, Nike
Media Relations, Paula Cooper Gallery, Julia
Rothman, Guy Wenborne and Yonezawa City
Uesugi Museum for their generous help with
images. Our sincere appreciation goes to our
Flickr photographers, Bruno Bellec, David
Brittain, Melody Kramer, Manuela Martin and
Aimin Wang. To Ben Playford and Jonathan
Santos, our thanks for your unconditional
patience, love and support.
——
S
T
N
E
M
E
G
D
E
L
W
O
N
K
C
A
THE
Introduction
NAME
OF THE
GAME
—
A conversation
between
Esther Choi and
Marrikka Trotter,
editors
Esther Choi— Coming from a non-architectural background, EC— And yet there’s a deep hesitation on the part of xiii
I have always admired the way that many architectural architecture to engage with adjacent forms of cultural
practitioners took the initiative to create their own production, despite the fact that these fields are embed-
platforms for discussion. The proliferation of ‘lit- ded and historically intertwined within the discipline.
tle magazines’ in the 1960s and 1970s was particularly It’s common for architectural historians and critics to
inspiring because these publications echoed the DIY diminish contributions from well-respected art historians
aesthetics and fanzine production approach that were so and critics to architectural discourse, as if these out-
central to subcultural communication and activism within side perspectives could only offer “less.” Architectural
adjacent disciplines. Of course, the same activity was thinkers sometimes seem committed to an infantilizing
going on in the disciplines of art criticism and produc- attitude toward other disciplines, which is a strange
tion at the time, but the architectural tendency to treat pretense considering that architecture as a practice is
theory and practice as coextensive threads of the same inherently collaborative, polyphonic, and dispersed.
creative enterprise outlasted similar efforts in other Curator Kelly Baum has suggested that heterogeneity can
E
fields. Few contemporary artists wear the critic/theorist provide a structural logic as well as act as the sub- E
E
hat, but it is still common for architects to contribute ject for contemporary art practices—and I’d like to think A
to both design and discourse. So when we met as students about this book as an experiment at
1— See Kelly Baum,
at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, I was disap- putting that divergent, inclusive,
“Questionnaire on ‘The
pointed to see that the majority of young practitioners and “agonistic” theory into practice Contemporary,’” October
and architecture students were hesitant to claim that within the architectural discipline.1 130 (Fall 2009): 94.
tradition for themselves or to redefine it in a way that
MT— Exactly. Look at how the discipline of architecture
would be of relevance to them.
as a body has reflected both the influences it likes to
Marrikka Trotter— I attended a roundtable discussion at think it chooses—ideas and images from philosophy, art,
the GSD when Peter Sloterdijk made a comment that caused and science (in a one-way direction, of course, as you
a lot of students to actually tear up. He pointed out point out)—and the contamination it cannot avoid, like
that while his (post-WWII) generation had been impressed legislative constraints and the flow of finance. The
upon that they mattered and that they had an important former is habitually applied to the surface of architec-
role to play in the world, young people today are being tural production as “clothing” of discursive terminology
made to feel that they have neither the capacity within and formal or aesthetic effects. The latter infects
themselves nor the historical-cultural-political room in and modifies like germs or gravity, changing not the
the world to make a contribution. He was very sad about terms used within the discourse but, rather, forms of
that, and he was in some ways accusing his own genera- thinking—affecting not the fashion of architecture but
tion. He said something to the effect of “we have to tell its modes of practice. We are inundated with examples
students today that they are vital—that we need them of the first kind of influence; these are trumpeted. —
R
and their ideas.” I’m not willing to cast blame on baby An example of the second kind of contamination might E
T
T
boomers en masse, but our predecessors were born into an be specifications, which have exponentially expanded O
R
era of epic struggle. And in 1968 or thereabouts, when a in length and complexity in the past one hundred years T
D
lot of liberal thinkers felt like they lost their fight until they have reached the limit state of unwieldi- N
A
to change the fundamental operations of the world, it’s ness at the same time that their production consumes an OI
not only as if they hammered their own swords into plow- inordinate amount of energy. The liability involved in H
C
shares, but also the only thing they taught us to do was the production of built work has pooled within the cor-
to make more plowshares while attending carefully to pus of architecture simply because it could not be fought
stories about the glory days. There’s a limit to how many off. I would like to see the exchange and interchange
agricultural implements and good note-takers are use- between architecture and its surrounding vectors become
ful at any one time in history. In reality, there are so two-way in each kind of contamination and influence, so
many extraordinarily urgent and necessary issues that new that architecture is confined neither to superficiality
minds and new approaches need to try to address. nor to subservience. There’s a misplaced sense of trans-
lation in which an argument and its revelatory poten-
tial are deployed by the discipline into an alibi for a
form-making methodology. Architecture is not (inherently) dissolve disciplinary boundaries simply because of novel v
x
a crime: it does not (inherently) need an alibi. formal or institutional similarities that may exist
between architecture and other forms of cultural produc-
One thing that I think is becoming clearer, even though
tion, but I don’t think that these congruencies can be
it’s usually unstated, is that there is a new willingness
disregarded either. There are a number of historically
to separate the profession from the activity and dis-
rich moments of overlap between art and architecture—
course of architecture. I think this book is beginning to
from Lilly Reich and Mies van der Rohe’s 1927 Velvet and
map this fissure. People are willing to explore deploying
Silk Café to Gordon Matta Clark’s building cuts of the
architectural ideas or architectural techniques outside
1970s—and these episodes of methodological and disci-
the profession.
plinary cross-pollination demonstrate how the blurring
EC— But isn’t that problematic in terms of the social of boundaries can cause a third condition from which new
relevance of architecture? questions and imaginative modes of practice and thought
may emerge. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree
MT— I don’t think so, because I think the profession of E
with the notion of broadening disciplinary frameworks E
architecture is losing its value in the world of today. E
to consider a larger field of spatial practices, there A
I’m making a distinction between the architectural dis-
are a growing number of contemporary architectural and
cipline and the architectural profession. I don’t think
artistic practices that seek to intentionally exacerbate
that the discipline is going away, just that the profes-
the intermittent and ambiguous connections between art,
sion has less and less to offer. The profession started
architecture, commerce, politics, and the social realm.
out as an essential mechanism for a certain mode of eco-
Both theorists and practitioners need to develop new
nomic and political operation that has lost its value and
vocabularies for understanding and interpreting these
has almost ceased to exist. This doesn’t mean that we’re
modes of practice; in turn, new audiences will emerge.
in any danger of losing the specificity of architectural
For me, the question is not how or why we should delin-
procedures, but merely that we are getting to the point
eate disciplinary boundaries, but rather, how we can
where we can no longer sustain the separation of archi-
perforate disciplinary boundaries without eroding the
tecture as a profession from all other creative activity.
discipline and rigor with which our intellectual inves-
I like Michael Meredith and Liam Gillick’s definition of
tigations should be undertaken.
the discipline and discourse of architecture versus art.
In their conversation they conclude that anything can be MT— There is a difference in understanding how things
defined as architectural so long as architects are talk- contaminate and infect each other and believing that
ing about it, and that the same holds true for art. That contamination or infectiousness somehow has the power
makes a lot of sense to me; it depends on to whom you are to erode the individuality of the body that is con-
talking and who is listening. cerned. Just because I have a million different organ-
isms infecting my body does not mean that I do not have —
EC— But surely that is still a move to continue to treat R
an identity. It might mean that they kill me, but that’s E
architecture as autonomous within a much larger field of TT
another discussion. O
spatial practices. I would rather frame architecture as R
T
an extension of these other practices because it cre- I know how to detail a window and you don’t. You know D
N
ates a more heterogeneously inclusive model that could how to design a light installation and I don’t. But I’m A
include what Michael and Liam pointedly disavowed: an not going to suddenly forget how to detail a window OI
H
eclectic array of practices and diverse modes of inves- because I’m talking to you. All that I risk is educa- C
tigation in general. There’s no question that collabora- tion. “Interdisciplinary” in this context just means that
tions and conversations across disciplines can result in disciplines are talking among themselves. It doesn’t mean
potentially fruitful advances. With the steady diver- nondisciplinary. If it’s nondisciplinary, then I agree
gence between architecture’s practice and profession that we have a problem. But if you have an architect who
that you spoke of, architects are increasingly infil- is doing art, then either that architect is talking to
trating spaces like galleries and museums more typical architects through the medium of art or the architect is
to artistic practices as they seek sites for archi- also an artist and therefore also participating in art
tectural experimentation. I’m not advocating that we discourse. But the mediums still exist—it’s always going
to be either one or the other, even when some people do a response to that call. The contributors in this vol- vii
x
both. So, for me, people are afraid of the wrong thing. ume seem to be loosely affiliated around an interest in
resisting inertia.
EC— Absolutely. In terms of the pragmatic implementa-
tion of interdisciplinary thinking and action within the MT— I agree. We need a myriad of people, approaches,
architectural discipline, there seem to be two major fac- tactics, and ideas, all deploying in whatever space and
tors: on the one hand, there is reluctance on the part of whatever capacity possible. This is not a monolithic
institutions and architectural practitioners to release ideological effort but rather an incremental, ongoing,
themselves from their self-imposed disciplinary autonomy and very diffuse project of trying to realize something
and challenge their attitudes toward ideas and forces better than what we see in front of us. You can take that
from outside the discipline. On the other hand, impacting politically, economically, or ecologically.
any kind of change at this level involves allowing other
It’s funny because we talked about all of the threads
voices to enter the conversation. It’s striking that the
that connect the essays in a positive manner, but one
few prominent figures who were not trained as architects, E
thing that also connects them in a negative sense is a E
namely Sanford Kwinter and Jeffrey Kipnis, have made such E
complete rejection of the so-called postcritical project. A
provocative contributions to architectural discourse, yet
I think it should be rejected and hope it’s gone away.
the paucity of platforms for cross- or trans- or inter-
But even though we have contributor after contributor
disciplinary conversations persists.
identifying reasons that postcriticality is insufficient
MT— That lack of platforms points to a lack of initia- or problematic, in the end I think we produced a
tive, and the lack of initiative brings us right back to projective book. People are actually projecting new
where we started this conversation. That’s part of the possibilities into the larger discourse. In terms of
project of Work Books: we are trying to elucidate and platforms, this book is our performative book act: the
work through ideas, not because we want to develop ideo- doing of it makes it so.
logical positions free from contamination, but rather
because we want to understand and participate in what
is underway. I’d like to think about our platform as a
desk—not something that you stand on but a surface for
work—containing different tools and different projects
in various states of completion. I want people to feel
free to bring their work to the desk and work on it with
other people.
EC— One of the larger strains emerging from the book,
not in a polemical sense, but in terms of a shared —
R
concern, deals with the issue of agency. This word comes E
T
T
up repeatedly throughout the book, and I think it speaks O
R
to a much larger concern among younger practitioners T
D
about the role that architecture plays in instigating N
A
interventions within the public realm and imagining OI
particular forms of social possibility. Various politi- H
C
cal theories dealing with participation and relational
practices are referenced as a way to think about the
nature of social relationships and the kinds of envi-
ronments that engender these relationships. I’ve found
that this topic of agency is delivered with a sense of
“authenticity” and insistence. I
2— See Andrew Zago,
keep returning to Andrew Zago’s idea
“Real What?” Log 5
of “post-ironic authenticity”2—and (Spring/Summer
I’d like to think of this book as 2005): 101.
HOW
PART
one
TO
INTER
PRET
